Browder, Diane M.; Lee, Angela; Mims, Pam (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, v46 n3 p339-351. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ942502
Reviewed: December 2017
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for System of Least Prompts.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see System of Least Prompts Intervention Report (236 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in three self-contained classes for students with disabilities in a large urban school district in the United States.
This study included three elementary school students (Donna, Denise, and Ralph) with severe intellectual disability and a physical or sensory impairment. Donna was an 8-year-old girl with severe intellectual disability and cerebral palsy. She communicated through eye gazes and used a wheelchair. Denise was a 9-year-old girl with severe intellectual disability and was legally blind. She communicated through vocalization and facial expressions and was able to move around but needed help finding different locations in the school. Ralph was a 6-year-old boy with severe intellectual disability and cerebral palsy. Ralph communicated through facial expressions and used a wheelchair.
The interventionists were special education teachers who provided one-on-one instruction to study students while the other students in the classroom worked with paraprofessionals. The teachers read two picture story books to each student individually and used selected objects from the book to convey key ideas or storylines. During the intervention, teachers followed scripts that included a “least-to-most prompting system.” Specific scripts were designed for each task and student, as the students all used different forms of communication to respond, such as eye gazes or facial expressions. Each script covered what the teachers should say and do, the materials teachers would use (laminated copies of two story books with summaries, objects related to the stories, and voice output devices or an eye gaze board from the classroom), how students could respond, and the prompting procedures. For example, prompts included verbal cues (such as re-reading text and questions), modeling the correct answer, and physically guiding the student to the correct answer. The teachers gave the students 5 seconds to respond before introducing a prompt. They also praised any independent, correct answers.
During the baseline phase, teachers used the same materials (laminated copies of two story books with summaries, objects related to the stories, and voice output devices or an eye gaze board from the classroom) and script, but did not prompt students or reinforce correct answers. The teachers read the book and asked the questions, but otherwise did not comment or respond. The teachers did randomly provide praise for good behavior (e.g., sitting) to keep the students participating in the assessment.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube